Delhi Court August 1995 Judgments

Sawhney Exports House Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC62Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an application by the appellant/applicant for referring certain alleged questions of law, as detailed out therein, said to have arisen out of Stay Order No. S-86/94-D, dated 19-8-1994 read with Misc.Order No. 26/95-D, dated 7-2-1995.2. Shri T.S. Sawhney, Managing Director of the appellants company appeared and when he was told by the Bench as to why the appeal be not dismissed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, he submitted that he has filed the present reference application and the questions proposed therein be referred to the High Court concerned.3. The Bench heard both sides. Shri Sawhney took us through the reference application to emphasise that the questions proposed are questions of law and can be referred. He also added that the present reference application was filed on 20-2-1995 and the same is still pending. Shri Mohan Lal, JDR submitted that no reference application is maintainable against interlocutory order. That apart he also submitted that in...

intercraft Ltd. Vs. Capital Boot House

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)798; 59(1995)DLT774; 1995(35)DRJ368

S.D. Pandit, J.(1) This application is filed by the defendant under Rule 4 of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code.(2) Suit No.2199/94 is filed by the plaintiff Intercraft Ltd. to get a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the shop bearing No.B-24, Cannaught Place, new Delhi and to further restrain them from disturbing the plaintiff in carrying on the business in the said shop and to get a declaration that he is lawful tenant of the defendants.(3) Plaintiff has come before the Court alleging that plaintiff is a public limited company and is function under the name and style of Intershoppe. They are manufacturers and retailers of garments in India. They deal in readymade garments and related accessories. They have got international market and have got a very high reputation not only in India but throughout the world. They were interested in opening a retail outlet in Cannaught Place in the year 1980. At that time the defendan...

Advance Foods Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT385TriDel

1. The appellants, herein, are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur dated 3-11-1992. They are engaged in the manufacture of various products which included soap in liquid form.They filed classification list w.e.f. 21-7-1989 declaring the goods as soap in liquid form and claiming classification under sub-heading 3401.10 and also claimed benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. This sub-heading 3401.10 CETA covers soap in any form. The classification list was, in due course, approved by the department.Similarly, their classification list for 1990-91 was also approved. On 17-6-1991, the Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellants and recorded a statement from Shri Lekhraj Sharma, Production Manager of M/s. Hosiden Laboratories since no responsible person of the appellant unit was present at that time. The name 'Otion' of M/s. Hosiden Laboratories was being used by the appellants and the Hosiden Laboratories were also marketing...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]221ITR582(Delhi)

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In this petition, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Revenue has sought for a reference to this court in respect of the following question relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that expenses on medical reimbursement ar Rs. 5,086 and payment of insurance premium at Rs. 1,350 could not be considered as perquisite for computing disallowances under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The aforesaid question was sought to be referred by the Revenue in a reference application under section 256(1) of the Act. The Tribunal, while disposing of the aforesaid application, held that question involved is not a referable question of law in view of the fact that the Tribunal followed the judgments of this court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Ram Charat Ram Pvt. Ltd. : [1986]157ITR199(De...

Associated Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT317

K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The petitioners have filed the suit under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioners entered into a contract with the defendants for the construction of 613, Janta Houses in Pocket 'Q' at Dilshad Garden, Delhi and necessary agreements were executed between the parties. T (2) The Contractor approached the respondents on several occasions for the payment of the work done, refund of balance security deposit besides other dues and damages payable by the respondents to the contractor on account of the breach committed by the respondents. The final bill was submitted by the petitioners on 1.7.1994. The respondents refused to pay the amount and, thereforee, by virtue of Clause 25 of the agreement the petitioners have invoked the arbitration for the adjudication of the disputes. (3) By letter dated 4.8.1994 the petitioner requested the Engineer Member, respondent No. 2 to appoint the Arbitrator for the adjudication of the disputes. The petitioner have in pa...

Hitachi Limited Vs. Ram Kishan Galhotra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT288

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff is Hitachi Ltd., a Company incorporated in Japan, and the defendants are persons carrying on business in Delhi. The plaintiff has the filed the suit and prays for the following reliefs:- 'IT is humbly prayed that a decree may be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the following effect:- (a) For permanent injunction and order of this Hon'ble Court restraining the defendants themselves, their associated companies, sister concerns, their agents, servants and all other persons on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, and offering for sale and distributing Head Light Dogia, Air Filter Katori, Tail Lamps, Air Filter Elements, Kick Starter-Handle Grip (PVC), Friction Plates and Jumper bearing the mark Hitachi and other goods falling in Class 12 and thereby infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark Hitachi or any other mark or marks which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade marks. (b) For permanent injun...

Atul Kumar Vs. Ram Avtar Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)264; 60(1995)DLT451; 1995(35)DRJ304

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for passing of decree on the basis of admission, alleged to have been made by defendant No.1 in the written statement. (2) The facts in brief are that the plaintiff has filed a suit claiming a decree for partition of the disputed property which is H.No.860-861, Gali Beriwali, Kucha Patiram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are two sons of late Krishan Lal. Defendants 2 to 7 are the married daughters and defendant No.8 is the widow of Krishan Lal. The property belonged to Krishan Lal and it is not in dispute that after death of Krishan Lal, the plaintiff and defendants have succeeded to the property to the extent of 1/9th share each, being class I heirs as specified in Schedule I of Hindu Succession Act. It is the plaintiff's case that he received a notice dated 31.5.1993 from defendants 2 to 7, copy of which was also addressed to defendants 1 & ...

Kenneth Solomon and anr. Vs. Shamlal Suneja and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT277

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Plaintiffs had filed two suits for declaration that the mortgages are void and not binding on them and in the alternative for redemption of the usufructuary mortgages etc. After trial on 29th March, 1972, a preliminary decree in both the suits in the following terms was passed :- 'IN view of the decision on various issues above and for the reasons stated in support thereof, the suits of the plaintiffs are decreed with costs for redemption of the suit property covered by Exhibits D-17, D-1 and D-2 in Suit No.638 of 1966 and Exhibits D-14 and D-15 in Suit No. 639 of 1966 on payment of amount found due after taking accounts between the parties and a preliminary decree for redemption of accounts is also passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants who shall render true and full accounts of the moneys or other benefits received by them by way of rent or otherwise and all expenses incurred by them in maintaining the property in question. Accordingly, I ...

Civil Engineers (India) Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT26; 1995(35)DRJ71

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) Suit No. 1002A/93 filed by M/s. Civil Engineers (India) under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. I.A. 2298/94 filed by the contractor/petitioner objecting to the award relating to claims No. 5,6 and 7. No reply has been filed by the DDA. IA.2506/94 filed by the Dda objecting to the award of the arbitrator with reference to claims No. 5 and 6, mentioned in the award. Mr. Nag, learned counsel for the Dda confined his arguments only to claim No. 5. (2) In claim No.2 the contractor claims Rs. 5 lakhs for extra item executed by it. After referring to the pleadings and also the evidence and the documents on record, the arbitrator allowed the claim of the contractor to the extent of Rs. 1,10,334.00 . In claim No. 5, the claimant made a claim of Rs. 80,000.00 towards damages due to delays in the work on account of the respondent. The arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 24,600.00 but interest was not allowed. (3) Claim No. 6 relates to interest which is claimed by the claiman...

Guru Ispat Ltd Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This common appeal though separately filed and registered as Appeal Nos. 25 to 28 of 1994 has been directed against the common Adjudication Order No. 136/93/DD/dated 28-10-1993 (despatched on 16-11-1993) under which a penalty of Rs. 20,000 has been imposed on the first appellant for contravention of section 16(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for non-realisation of the claim amount of US $ 8190 from Kobin Singapore (P.) Ltd. of Singapore. Further, penalties of Rs. 40,000 each have been imposed on the second, third and fourth appellants in their capacity of being Directors of the first appellant, by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act. 2. It appears that the memorandum of appeal as initially filed was not in proper form and was not accompanied either with the evidence of pre- deposit as required under section 52(2) of the Act or any petition for waiver in accordance with rule 6A of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974. The appellants m...